CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Supplementary Estimates

Christopher Leslie: Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Northern Ireland Court Service and national archives: Public Records Office and Historical Manuscripts Commission DEL will be increased by £280,221,000 from £3,256,319,000 to £3,536,540,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £116,908,000 from £886,273,000 to £1,003,181,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
	
		
			   New DEL 
			  Change Voted Non-voted Total 
		
		
			 Resource 201,429,000 1,330,463,000 2,107,386,000 3,437,849,000 
			 Capital 76,792,000 167,973,000 11,000,000 178,973,000 
			 Depreciation* 2,000,000 -78,609,000 -1,673,000 -80,282,000 
			 Total 280,221,000 1,419,827,000 2,116,713,000 3,536,540,000 
		
	
	*Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.
	The change in the resource element of the Department of Constitutional Affairs DEL arises from:
	RfR1
	Take-up of DEL end-year flexibility:
	£31,790,000 administration costs as set out in the public expenditure outturn White Paper; £27,200,000 administration costs in relation to receipts for the sale of Birmingham Priory Courts; £343,000 administration costs in relation to the online forms finance-invest to save budget (ISB) 387; £201,000 resources in the form of grants to the Legal Services Commission in relation to the invest to save budget (ISB) project award—legal services to prisoners; £167,000 resources in the form of grants to Legal Services Commission in relation to the ISB award—live and interactive (project Eagle); £10,000 administration costs in relation to the invest to save budget project 384 computer enquiry system; £3,304,000 administration costs, £2,990,000 programme costs, in relation to the CJS Reserve; £7,555,000 administration costs, £6,574,000 programme costs in relation to the single asylum fund (SAF) for 2004–05;
	Transfers from Central HM Treasury funds:
	£15,000,000 administration costs from the in relation to the single asylum fund (SAF) for 2004–05 SR02 uplift; £6,000,000 programme costs in relation to election pilots; £2,000 resources in the form of grant to Legal Services Commission in relation to the ISB award—live and interactive (project Eagle) ref: 297;
	CJS Reserve
	£23,580,000 administration costs and £24,823,000 programme costs, from Home Office in relation to the CJS reserve;
	Single Asylum fund
	£2,745,000 administration costs to DCA headquarters, £590,000 administration costs to the Court Service and £23,918,000 programme costs to DCA headquarters from the Home Office in relation to the single asylum fund (SAP);
	Transfers from other Government Departments:
	£3,900,000 programme costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Court Service in relation to Election Pilots Transfer for Elections Claims Unit (ECU); £3,600,000 resources from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Court Service in relation to section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; £517,000 administration costs from the Department for Education and Skills, and £2,858,000 administration costs to the Court Service in relation to the implementation costs for S.118 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; £337,000 administration costs from Home Office in relation to the recovered asset incentivisation fund; £330,000 resources from the Department for Education and Skills to Legal Services Commission: administration in relation to the implementation costs for S.118 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; £330,000 administration costs to DCA headquarters and £20,000 administration costs to the Court Service from the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the Civil Partnership Bill; £210,000 administration costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to funding for election claims service level agreement (SLA); £62,000 administration costs from the Ministry of Defence in relation to Naval Courts Martial; £44,000 administration costs in relation to the transfer of the neighbourhood statistics programme (NeSS) admin fund 2004–05 from the Office for National Statistics; £4,000 administration costs from the Home Office and £14,000 programme costs in relation to the Anti Social Behaviour Act part 2—Juvenile County Court pilot;
	Transfers to other Government Departments:
	£22,000,000 programme costs to the Northern Ireland Court Service in relation to funding the Legal Services Commission in Northern Ireland; £200,000 administration costs to the Office for National Statistics in relation to funding the gender recognition project; £34,000 administration costs to the Northern Ireland Court Service in relation to the Civil Partnership Bill; £17,000 administration costs to the Department of Trade and Industry being contribution to the apportionment of the fees for senior salaries review body (SSRB) members;
	RfR3
	A transfer to the Wales Office of £490,000 resources from the National Assembly for Wales to cover DCA merger.
	The change in the resource element of the Northern Ireland Court Service DEL arises from:
	A PES transfer from the Department for Constitutional Affairs of £22,034 in respect of the funding of publicly funded legal services in Northern Ireland (£22,000), expenditure arising from the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill in Northern Ireland (£34,000) and an adjustment (£10,138) to convert the baseline for publicly funded legal services from a cash to a resource basis.
	The change of £2,000,000 in the resource element of the national archives DEL arises from:
	Expenditure on the development of digital information systems for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act and development of online services for the national archives website further to improve access to catalogues and records. The increase sought comprises £2 million end year flexibity draw down and a reduction of £2 million in depreciation provision offset against a £2 million increase in resources DEL. Additionally, to allow the national archives to develop wider market sales operations, a neutral change is sought to allow for £3.4 million of expenditure on events, on wholesale publishing, book purchases and record copying intended for sale through the national archive's retail sales outlets and wholesale distribution channels. This expenditure is offset by additional wider market receipts generated by these retail sales of £3.4 million. The 2004–05 main estimate provided £36.7 million administration cost limit. The winter supplementary estimate requests an increase in the original provision of £2 million, making the new limit £38.7 million.
	The change in the capital element of the Department of Constitutional Affairs DEL arises from:
	RfR1
	Take-up of DEL End Year Flexibility
	£16,115,000 capital costs as set out in the public expenditure outturn White Paper; £30,900,000 capital costs in relation to receipts for the sale of Birmingham Priory Courts; £9,580,000 capital, in relation to the CJS Reserve; £8,400,000 capital in relation to the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF); £2,000,000 capital costs in relation to the Single Asylum Fund (SAF) for 2004–05;
	CJS Reserve
	£6,520,000 capital from Home Office in relation to the CJS Reserve;
	The change in the capital element of the Northern Ireland Court Service DEL arises from:
	The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £2,000 in end year flexibility to fund a programme of major refurbishment and IT related projects.
	The change in the capital element of the national archives DEL arises from:
	Expenditure on the development of digital information systems for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act and development of online services for the national archives website to further improve access to catalogues and records. This increase comprises a £1.3 million end-year flexibility draw-down.

DEFENCE

Côte D'Ivoire

Geoff Hoon: In a statement on 11 November 2004, I outlined the military planning that was in hand to support an evacuation of UK nationals from Côte d'Ivoire.
	The deteriorating security conditions in Côte d'Ivoire last week subsequently led to an evacuation of UK nationals from the country, following a recommendation by Her Majesty's ambassador to Côte d'Ivoire that he judged this a prudent course of action. This recommendation was formulated after receiving technical military advice from the operational liaison and reconnaissance team, which had deployed on 10 November 2004 to monitor the situation in the region as part of the Ministry of Defence's contingency planning.
	The spearhead lead element was initially deployed to a forward mounting base in Accra, Ghana, where the operation was commanded by elements of the UK's joint task force headquarters. The majority of these forces were drawn from the spearhead lead element based on the 1st Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles, but the operation was supported and enabled by Royal Air Force transport aircraft from RAF Brize Norton and RAF Lyneham. As an additional contingency measure, the landing platform dock HMS Albion was also diverted towards Côte d'Ivoire.
	It is indicative of the armed forces' capacity to undertake comprehensive contingency planning, and their flexibility and capability to respond quickly to events, that within 24 hours of receiving a formal request from the Foreign Secretary nearly 300 service personnel were on the ground in Ghana, engaged in preparations for the evacuation.
	Between 11 and 13 November 2004, UK forces evacuated some 220 individuals from Abidjan and Yamoussoukro to Ghana, where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had set up a reception centre to cater for the men, women and children who wished to leave Côte d'Ivoire.
	All Service personnel involved in the evacuation operation have now returned to the UK, with the exception of HMS Albion which has returned to normal duties.
	The success of this operation is in no small part due to the high degree of co-operation that existed between the deployed forces, Her Majesty's ambassador and his staff in country, and with international partners in the region, in particular Ghana and France.
	The successful completion and efficient recovery of our deployed forces is m impressive achievement and one which took place without impact on the UK's enduring commitments across the globe. This is testament to the professionalism of the men and women who serve in the UK armed forces and in particular to those who participated in this operation.

Future Rapid Effect System (FRES)

Adam Ingram: I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract with Atkins in respect of the systems house role for the future rapid effect system (FRES).
	The Ministry of Defence will be providing strategic direction, with Atkins, who are a major British company in this field, leading a number of key activities designed to inform MOD's major programme decisions during the assessment phase. Atkins' independence from product will enable them to take an objective view of the ideas and technologies that may be applicable to FRES, and marry new approaches to the knowledge that we already have as a result of previous work. Their comprehension of the risks inherent in complex systems of systems integration will be vital in determining feasible solutions. In addition, they will be managing a programme of risk reduction activities, mitigating the risks of certain technologies to determine if they are suitable for FRES. Technologies will only be inserted into FRES when they are sufficiently mature, whether initially or as part of an incremental technology insertion programme. The proactive management of these diverse de-risking activities will be key to achieving a manageable level of risk at the Main Gate investment point.
	We will seek maximum appropriate competition during all programme phases, enabling industry to engage at all levels, within the context of our defence industrial policy. We will be transparent and inclusive with industry from the earliest possible stage in terms of the defence industrial policy factors that may affect acquisition decisions. To this end we have published a paper setting out our plans in this respect and identifying constraints where they apply. Understanding the broad factors that are likely to impact those decisions will enable industry to make informed judgments on whether they wish to bid and, if they choose to do so, to ensure that their bids take due account of the declared criteria.
	Finally, FRES is a complex programme, with obvious tension between competing demands such as capability, time to delivery and affordability. However, the award of this contract to Atkins provides us with the necessary industrial expertise and realism to examine those competing demands in detail and to make informed decisions in order to achieve the optimum FRES solution.

HEALTH

NHS Research Ethics Committees

Rosie Winterton: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Warner, announced at the Grand Committee on the Human Tissue Bill on 15 September, column GC432, that he intended to seek independent advice on the operation of the research ethics committee system, including the Central Office for National Health Service Research Ethics Committees.
	My noble Friend has asked Michael O'Higgins, a managing partner of PA Consulting Group Ltd., to chair a small ad-hoc group of scientists and lay members. It will undertake a review of the systems that support NHS Research Ethics Committees in England, and make recommendations for further steps to improve their operation, building on changes already under way.
	The group will first meet in November and will report to Health Ministers by the end of March 2005. Details of the group's membership and terms of reference can be found on the Department's website www.dh.gov.uk.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Zimbabwe

Des Browne: In January 2002 the Home Secretary announced the temporary suspension of removals of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. This was in response to concerns at that time about the serious deterioration in the situation in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the presidential election held in March that year. We did not regard it as unsafe to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, but in view of the turbulent political conditions we considered that it would be appropriate not to enforce returns at that time.
	During the period of the suspension, asylum and human rights claims made by Zimbabwean nationals have continued to be considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Each application is considered against the background of the latest available country information from a wide range of reliable sources including international organisations, non-governmental organisations, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the media.
	As with any other nationality, Zimbabweans who meet the definition of a refugee in the 1951convention are granted asylum. If they do not qualify for asylum, but there are other circumstances that make them particularly vulnerable and engage our obligations under the ECHR, they are granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. If their application is refused, they have a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities. In this way we ensure that we provide protection to those Zimbabweans who need it. But if an asylum and human rights claim by an individual of any nationality is refused, and any appeal to the independent appellate authorities is unsuccessful, that means that it would be safe for that particular individual to return to their country of origin.
	It is clear that there are Zimbabweans in need of international protection from persecution. Our asylum system provides that and will continue to do so. We have continued throughout the period of the suspension of enforced returns to consider cases and grant asylum or other forms of protection to Zimbabweans where necessary. The latest asylum statistics published today show that at initial decision stage in the first nine months of this year we granted asylum to 195 Zimbabweans and some other form of protection to more than 25 others. But this was out of a total of 2,025 decisions, meaning that very nearly 90 per cent. of claims were refused. 82 per cent. of subsequent appeals to the independent adjudicator were dismissed or withdrawn, the clear message is that the majority of Zimbabwean asylum applicants are able safely to return to Zimbabwe. We expect these individuals to leave voluntarily, and significant numbers have done so, but if they do not leave voluntarily we consider it entirely proper to seek to enforce their removal as we would nationals of any other country.
	While there has not been any improvement in conditions in Zimbabwe since enforced removal of failed asylum seekers was suspended, the proportion of claimants whose claims are not well-founded has increased markedly over the period of the suspension. It is clear that the absence of enforced returns increasingly acts as a "pull factor" for Zimbabweans, and for others posing as Zimbabweans, who do not need international protection but nonetheless make asylum claims confident that even when unsuccessful they will not be forcibly removed. This is a misuse of the asylum system. We are therefore today bringing our policy on returns of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers into line with that on every other country and ending the temporary suspension of enforced returns of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers.
	This change in asylum policy does not reflect any change in our categorical opposition to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. We will continue, bilaterally and with our international partners, to push the Government of Zimbabwe to end human rights abuses there, and restore democracy, so that all Zimbabweans can in time return safely to help build a prosperous and stable country. There is no doubt that political persecution, abuses of human rights and denial of basic freedoms persist in Zimbabwe and the asylum decision-making and appeal system will continue to ensure that Zimbabweans who face persecution and claim asylum in the UK will continue to receive the international protection they need.

Asylum Seeker Families

Des Browne: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has been reviewing their processes and policies with a view to increasing efficiency and reducing numbers in emergency accommodation.
	A concession in the dispersal policy, where NASS departed from the policy of dispersal if a family had a child that had attended a particular school for a year, was part of this review. The concession, was designed to enable us to ensure that asylum seeker families in receipt of DWP benefits and who were transferring to NASS support, following receipt of a negative asylum decision—such cases are often referred to as disbenefited cases—could continue to be supported in the accommodation they had been living in while in receipt of benefits.
	I agreed in August that this concession should be amended. In considering the change, regard was given to the need to balance disruption to the education of a child with the availability of suitable accommodation in non-dispersal areas. Consideration was also given to the number of families who remained in emergency accommodation—which is not intended for long-term occupation—in London and other areas for long periods of time.
	The revised policy came into force on Friday 13 August 2004. The change in policy was announced by a letter dated 13 August, from the director of NASS to the membership of the National Asylum Support Forum, copied to LGA, ALG, COSLA and the Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator. A copy of the letter was placed on the Home Office website and NASS wrote to all families affected by this change.
	Under the new policy, dispersal is temporarily deferred where an asylum seeker has a dependant child in their household who has started the final school or college year leading up to their GCSE, AS or A-level exams, or their equivalents. This is provided they have been enrolled at that school or college for a significant part of the previous school or college year.
	However, families will not benefit from this concession if they have been unco-operative, for example, if they have failed to travel to dispersal accommodation without reasonable excuse or have switched the type of their NASS application without good reason, and this has resulted in their dispersal being delayed until their child is in the final school year leading to their GCSE, AS or A Level exam.
	Families with children who are in the school year leading to Statutory Assessment Tasks (SATs) will not benefit from the concession.
	If a family has a child with special educational needs who has gained entry to an appropriate school, dispersal will normally be postponed until arrangements are in place for the child to transfer to a suitable school in the dispersal area.
	Cases that fall outside the revised criteria will be examined on their own merits, although the expectation is that dispersal will normally be appropriate. Families in emergency accommodation who applied for support before 13 August 2004—and whose dispersal may have been postponed as a result of the previous policy—have been reassessed under the new policy. This assessment took account of all known circumstances and consideration was given to whether dispersing the family would be reasonable. In order to minimise disruption to children and schools NASS aimed to arrange for a move to new accommodation to take place before the start of the new school year.
	Disbenefited families supported by NASS prior to 13 August 2004, who met the terms of the concession in place before that date and where arrangements have been made with a local authority to pay their rent and utilities, will not be reassessed under the new policy, unless their accommodation becomes unsustainable for some reason.
	We are considering other changes to the policy on dispersal and I may announce any further changes to the House when decisions have been taken.

PC Gerald Walker

Paul Goggins: On 25 March I placed in the House Library a copy of the report by Professor Rod Morgan which I and the Minister for Policing had commissioned into the circumstances leading up to and following the death of PC Gerald Walker as a consequence of the actions of David Parfitt, who was then unlawfully at large following the revocation of his licence and recall to prison. I also placed in the Library a copy of the action plan which I had agreed with the director general of national probation service representing the police, prison and probation services and which set out a clear plan for delivering changes to national policy and practice recommended by Professor Morgan in light of his inquiry findings.
	The director general of the national probation service has now reported to me on the progress achieved in delivering the action plan and I am today placing a copy of that report in the House Library.
	I am very pleased that the director general is able to confirm that, of the 10 recommendations in Professor Morgan's report, two have already been met in full, a further four will be the subject of comprehensive advice which will be issued during November, and three other recommendations will result in guidance being issued before the end of December. Progress is being made to reach agreement with the employing authorities for probation staff on the final recommendation, which requires a change to the terms and conditions of some probation grades, but the director general is hopeful that there will be agreement in time for changes to be implemented early in 2005–06.
	As I made clear in my written statement to the House on 25 March, PC Walker's death was an irreplaceable loss to the Nottinghamshire constabulary and to the community they serve, and a personal tragedy for his wife and two children. The changes to national practices that Professor Morgan recommended, and the action plan is delivering, cannot make up for that loss. Those changes will, however ensure that the legacy of PC Walker's sacrifice will be better supervision of offenders, more effective inter-agency working between the police and correctional services, and, by reducing the risk of similar events recurring, greater security to the public in future.

Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth Disturbances

David Blunkett: I am today publishing the report by the prisons and probation ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, of his investigation into the serious disturbance at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre on 14 and 15 February 2002.
	Immediately after the disturbance, Stephen Moore, a senior member of the Prison Service, was asked to conduct an investigation of what had happened. He made significant progress but was unable to have access to the information necessary to complete his investigation until associated court proceedings had been completed. On 19 June 2003, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Citizenship and Immigration announced in a written statement that she had decided that Stephen Shaw, who had been providing an independent overview of the work done up to that point, should take overall responsibility for the investigation, in order to ensure that it was fully independent. As Mr. Shaw notes in his report, he had unfettered access to papers and staff. I am grateful to him for the care with which he has examined what was by any standards an extremely serious incident and for a very thorough report, and to Stephen Moore for the considerable effort he invested in the earlier stages of the investigation.
	The report criticises the handling by the contractor Group 4 of the incident which gave rise to the disturbances. It identifies weaknesses in design and materials which it attributes to the time constraints under which the centre was built, and which, in Mr. Shaw's view, rendered it unfit for purpose and unable to withstand the assault on it that occurred on 14 and 15 February 2002. It finds that "the operation that ended the disturbance seems to have worked well", but that there was a lack of clarity as to who was in charge and the command structure. It notes the lack of information held centrally at that time on detainees, of the kind that would have supported a more effective risk assessment of the detained population.
	Stephen Shaw pays tribute, as I do, to the bravery shown by individual members of the Prison Service and Group 4 staff, by members of the emergency services and those detainees who rescued staff who were trapped. As he says, there was no loss of life, but the disturbance and fire were traumatic events for those involved.
	It is important to remember the context in 2000 and 2001, when the Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth removal centres were built. Asylum applications had risen significantly in 1999 and remained at high levels. All those involved—Ministers and officials alike—were rightly convinced that part of the solution was the creation of significantly more detention accommodation than had previously existed to support the removal of failed asylum seekers. In that context, the creation of such additional accommodation was understandably seen as an urgent priority. It is easy to be wise with hindsight, but I readily acknowledge that the weaknesses in design and materials identified by Stephen Shaw existed and made the centre more vulnerable to a disturbance than it would otherwise have been.
	The important thing is that there were clear lessons to be learned, and they were. As the report notes, the Colnbrook removal centre, which opened recently, was built to a much more robust design. The Harmondsworth centre, originally built to the same design as Yarl's Wood, was extensively refurbished, with the installation of sprinklers and the strengthening of parts of the infrastructure, as was the surviving part of Yarl's Wood. The command structure in the event of a disturbance was clarified and improved, and effort invested in staff training.
	I am also publishing today the report of an investigation of the more recent disturbance at Harmondsworth on 19 July this year by Sue McAllister, the head of the security group in the Prison Service. I am grateful also to Ms. McAllister for her work. This has been a more limited investigation, because a number of those involved in the disturbance still face criminal proceedings. It is, however, clear from the report that, as a result of the refurbishments I have described, Harmondsworth was significantly more able to withstand a serious disturbance than would otherwise have been the case. Damage was limited, the command arrangements for responding to the incident generally worked well, and the restoration of order was, in Ms McAllister's words, "a successful operation" in which Prison Service, police and other staff acquitted themselves well. There were no injuries to either staff or detainees and there were no escapes from the centre. The centre was up and running again within three months of the incident. The inherent weaknesses in the design were, however, a factor in the extent to which the disturbance spread throughout the centre, and fire safety requirements limited the measures that could be taken to control detainees, including preventing their confinement to their rooms. Officials have been addressing urgently with the contractor and fire authorities what more can be done to improve control without jeopardising fire safety.
	Ms McAllister comments on the lack of systems for assessing the suitability of detainees for the open regime at Harmondsworth, and recommends a more strategic approach to the management of disruptive individuals. It is important to recognise that the expansion of the immigration removal estate was in part a result of the decision to end the practice of detaining immigration offenders in prisons. Since the Yarl's Wood disturbance, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has strengthened arrangements for assessing the risk which individual detainees represent and for considering the case for moving disruptive detainees elsewhere in the estate or into prison accommodation. These arrangements are however being reviewed again in the light of experience at Harmondsworth and Ms. McAllister's comments, and there are plans to enhance the assessment process. Perhaps the most significant development is that the new centre at Colnbrook, built to a more robust design, provides an option for managing the more difficult detainees short of transfer to the prison estate—an option which did not previously exist.
	These two reports highlight the challenge which the management of immigration detainees now represents. Detainees are not convicted criminals. As Stephen Shaw notes, one of the factors in the design of Harmondsworth and Yarl's Wood was the aim to create an environment which, while secure, was not a prison environment; these events have shown the tension between this aim and the need to maintain control and security. As Stephen Shaw notes in his report, as the effectiveness of the removals process increases, detainees are now spending, on average, much shorter periods in detention. This is, in itself, welcome, but it tends to raise levels of tension among the detained population, and limits the scope for constructive activities of the kind that longer-term custodial institutions provide. That said, we have to ensure within the detention estate a humane regime that provides purposeful activities and is strong on contact between staff and detainees. That, rather than the structure of the buildings (important as that is), is the surest means by which the risk of disaffection and disturbance can be kept to the minimum. I have already accepted Stephen Shaw's recommendation (number 60) that a forum comprising officials, contractors and relevant interest groups be set up to consider provision of purposeful activity in removal centres. The forum will be chaired by the senior director, operations in IND, and the Chief Inspector of Prisons will be invited to be represented.
	Stephen Shaw's report makes a large number of other recommendations, many of which have already been acted on, while others will now be considered carefully and progressed, along with relevant conclusions of Sue McAllister's report. I have asked IND senior management to draw up an action plan based on these for publication in early 2005.
	There have been many improvements to the management of the detention system—indeed of IND as a whole—since these events took place but I am determined that we should learn any further lessons of these very serious events, and do everything we can to prevent a recurrence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Northern Ireland (Murder Inquiries)

Paul Murphy: On 1 April this year, I published Justice Cory's reports into allegations of state collusion in four murders in Northern Ireland. In doing so, I confirmed my intention to establish inquiries into the deaths of Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson. I am pleased to be able to confirm today both the identities of the inquiry panels and the inquiries' terms of reference.
	In each case, the panels will be chaired by a judge and will include both a member with specialist expertise and a lay member. The terms of reference have been deliberately drawn to allow the inquiries to consider both the allegations of collusion that have been made in these cases and also the issue of possible negligence.
	The Robert Hamill inquiry will be chaired by Sir Edwin Jowitt, a retired member of the High Court of England and Wales. He will be joined on the inquiry panel by Sir John Evans (former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall) and Reverend Baroness (Kathleen) Richardson of Calow (former moderator of the Free Churches' Council of England and Wales). The inquiry will be held under section 44 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Its terms of reference will be:
	"To inquire into the death of Robert Hamill with a view to determining whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the Royal Ulster Constabulary facilitated his death or obstructed the investigation of it, or whether attempts were made to do so; whether any such act or omission was intentional or negligent; whether the investigation of his death was carried out with due diligence; and to make recommendations."
	The Billy Wright inquiry will be chaired by the right hon. Lord (Ranald) MacLean of the Court of Session in Scotland. He will be supported in this role by Professor Andrew Coyle (director of the International Centre for Prisons Studies at King's College, London) and the Right Reverend John Oliver (retired diocesan Bishop of Hereford). The inquiry will be held under section 7 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. Its terms of reference will be:
	"To inquire into the death of Billy Wright with a view to determining whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the prison authorities or other state agencies facilitated his death, or whether attempts were made to do so; whether any such act or omission was intentional or negligent; and to make recommendations."
	The Rosemary Nelson inquiry will be chaired by Sir Michael Morland, a retired member of the High Court of England and Wales. The other panel members will be Sir Anthony Burden (former Chief Constable of South Wales police) and Dame Valerie Strachan (vice chair of the big lottery fund and former chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise). The inquiry will be held under section 44 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Its terms of reference will be:
	"To inquire into the death of Rosemary Nelson with a view to determining whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the Royal Ulster Constabulary or Northern Ireland Office facilitated her death or obstructed the investigation of it, or whether attempts were made to do so; whether any such act or omission was intentional or negligent; whether the investigation of her death was carried out with due diligence; and to make recommendations."
	As I said in my statement of 8 July, all three inquiries will have full powers to compel disclosure of documents and attendance of witnesses.
	The inquiries will start work as soon as possible.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Supplementary Estimates

Harriet Harman: Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Attorney General's DEL will be increased by £104,952,000 from £516,157,000 to £621,109,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £83,950,000 from £384,759,000 to £468,709,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
	
		£'000
		
			   New DEL 
			  Change Voted Non-voted Total 
		
		
			 Resource 96,670 597,217 7,000 604,217 
			 Capital 8,282 23,015 0 23,015 
			 Depreciation* 0 -6,123 0 -6,123 
			 Total 104,952 614,109 7,000 621,109 
		
	
	*Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.
	The Crown Prosecution Service's element of the Attorney General's DEL will be increased by £94,438,000 from £466,991,000 to £561,429,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £81,450,000 from £353,527,000 to £434,977,000.
	The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
	Administration costs changes in respect of a transfer of £81,450,000 from the Criminal Justice System Reserve to fund the CPS's core business so that it can continue contributing to meeting criminal justice performance targets. Specific initiatives funded include the narrowing the justice gap and the charging programmes; better services for victims and witness through the speaking up for justice and direct communication with victims programmes; support for the effective trial management programme and tackling cross border crime;
	Programme expenditure changes in respect of a transfer of £6,100,000 from the Home Office to support the joint delivery of government targets for recovering proceeds of crime; a transfer of £141,000 from the Home Office recovered assets incentivisation fund to fund the appointment of a Receivership Panel; a transfer of £350,000 from the Home Office recovered assets incentivisation fund to provide additional resources to regional asset recovery teams; a transfer of £1,129,000 from the Home Office to support joint working and improve effective use of enforcement measures for anti-social behaviour; and
	The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the take-up of the CPS's end year flexibility of £5,268,000 from the capital modernisation fund (CMF) funding across 2004–05.
	The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers or charged to the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
	The Serious Fraud Office's element of the Attorney General's DEL will be increased by £7,500,000 from £33,140,000 to £40,640,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £2,500,000 from £21,240,000 to £23,740,000.
	The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from additional costs, £2,500,000 for administration expenditure and £5,000,000 for programme expenditure, relating to two fraud cases and will be charged to the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
	Treasury Solicitors' Department (TSD) element of the Attorney General's DEL will be increased by £3,014,000 from £16,026,000 to £19,040,000. There is no increase in the TSD's administration cost limit and it remains at £9,992,000. There is no change in the resource element of the DEL for the Treasury Solicitors' Department (TSD).
	The increase in capital of £3,014,000 from £3,400,000 to £6,414,000 arises from the procurement of a practice and case management system, which enables the Department to manage and monitor its caseload more efficiently, and a new electronic records and electronic document management system, which will be implemented this year. Capital funding is also required to purchase the furniture and fittings required in advance of TSD's change of accommodation in 2005–06. The increase will be offset by end year flexibility on capital DEL from 2003–04 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Crown Prosecutors

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Attorney General has made the following ministerial statement:
	The review of the code for Crown prosecutors, which I announced on 18 March 2004, Official Report, column WS25, is now complete. Copies of the revised code have been printed and have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The fundamental evidential and public interest considerations have not changed. However, the code has been amended to reflect the new role played by the Crown Prosecution Service in statutory charging whereby Crown prosecutors, rather than the police, will normally decide whether or not to charge a suspect and will determine the appropriate charge or charges. The new code also properly reflects other key developments in the four years since the code was last reviewed. These include: the developing role of prosecutors in assisting the sentencing court and seeking post conviction orders such as antisocial behaviour orders; alternatives to prosecution such as conditional cautioning; and new public interest factors in favour of prosecution relating to confiscation and any other orders, children, and community confidence. To ensure the code's accessibility, it will be published in audio and Braille and, in addition to English and Welsh, the most commonly spoken community languages.
	I welcome the revised code and commend it to all prosecuting authorities. Copies of the code for Crown prosecutors will be available on the Crown Prosecution Service website which can be found at www.cps.gov.uk.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

European Company Law—Cross Border Mergers

Jacqui Smith: The House will be aware that, between June and September 2004, the Government consulted on the proposed draft directive on cross border mergers. The consultation document set out in factual terms how the provisions of the directive would operate and invited comments. Ten responses were received from companies, legal advisers and industry bodies. The Government are grateful to those who took the time and trouble to contribute.
	The Government support the facilitation of corporate restructuring activities across the European Union to promote the single market. An effective framework of European company law, which facilitates cross-border mergers and provides legal certainty and adequate safeguards for those who deal with the companies involved, is essential for that purpose. The proposed directive is intended to provide this. Responses to the consultation indicated that introducing a mechanism for cross border mergers for UK companies would not have a significant impact, as UK companies have historically tended to favour restructuring by means of takeovers rather than mergers. Therefore, the Government intend to proceed with negotiations in a manner which is balanced and proportionate and which seeks to achieve the best outcomes for UK business. The Government will also look closely at options for implementation and consult further with stakeholders before decisions are taken on the most appropriate vehicle for implementation.
	Although there were a limited number of respondents, a variety of views were expressed on the scope of the directive (the types of company to which the directive should apply) where as views tended to be more aligned on the issue of employee participation. As most respondents were clear that the scope of the directive should apply to small and medium enterprises as well as larger companies, the Government have sought to achieve a broad approach to scope—whilst ensuring this provides necessary legal certainty.
	The Government have considered carefully the responses on the employee participation provisions of the directive. Employee participation is a system that exists within some EU countries (such as Germany and Sweden) for the representation of employees on the board of companies over a certain size. The term also covers employees' rights to recommend and/or oppose the appointment of board members. The consultation showed that there are concerns that this process could be too burdensome upon business if it were to follow the precedent set in the European company statute model, as this is a complicated, time consuming and potentially costly solution. This model requires that there are negotiations on employee participation issues in cases where a European company is formed by cross border merger involving one or more companies with an existing system of employee participation.
	Realistically, the Government cannot expect to negotiate a directive that would have the effect of removing employee participation rights where they exist in a company in another member state. For several member states, it is of fundamental importance to ensure that this directive does not undermine employee participation rights. Therefore, the Government have carefully considered the responses and will work towards an approach that keeps the burdens on UK companies to a minimum. In addition, it should be borne in mind that companies will be under no obligation to engage in a cross border merger and if they do not elect to, there will be no impact upon them.
	Statutory mergers of the kind covered by the proposal are little used by UK companies and the evidence indicates that it is unlikely that UK companies will choose to merge with companies in countries that have high levels of employee participation. We intend to seek improvements to the proposal to develop a more flexible process for agreeing employee participation arrangements and are committed to the objective of making the merger process available and less burdensome for UK companies
	I have placed copies of the summary of responses to the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.